Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 2/7/2017 10:52 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> I suspect that "says something technically wrong" is meant to constrain
>> things to the specification content, but that's not what the RFC-Editor
>> definition says, nor is it clear to me that it should be that constrained.
>
> I agree.  I think it mostly should, but that there should be judgment involved.
>
>> The current error has technical import, since we are talking about a broken
>> validation.
>>
>> So, I'm not at all clear that this qualifies as only an 'Editorial' error.
>
> I don't see it that way.
> I think there's a difference between an example that includes

So, I think I understand that view, which is why I said "ambiguous".

And the only reason I'm pursuing it, here, is that I think the 
determination of an erratum should not be so subjective.  I think the 
RFC Editor language defining categories should have criteria that are 
considerably more crisp.


d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html